• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
tom ploszaj

Anarchy In Your Head

70 posts in this topic

www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008

www.anarchyinyourhead.com

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008

www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A bit heavy handed, but not all that bad. It needs some subtlety to be good satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A member of the Free State Project who migrated to New Hampshire has started sharing his cartoons on line. Check them out especialy his "easter eggs". If you like his art send him some kudos and "Digg" his posts. Dale also started a online store for his art. He will be at PorcFest 2008

www.anarchyinyourhead.com

A bit heavy handed, but not all that bad. It needs some subtlety to be good satire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

= Mindy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

How exactly does it fail?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

How exactly does it fail?

Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?

= Mindy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?

So, do you think that people will not retaliate against the initiation of force? There may be no rules, but there will be retaliation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhh, there is no law, no law-enforcement, no rules against the initiation of force...that do?

So, do you think that people will not retaliate against the initiation of force? There may be no rules, but there will be retaliation.

Like in the movie Mystic River?

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks:

I spent quite a few years in the anarcho-capitalist movement. Jerome Tucille, et. al.

One of the major issues we attempted to resolve was just this question. Private protection organizations were explored ad naseum [not meant to be pejorative] and it is a difficult issue to resolve.

Read Kropotkin and other non left wing anarchists. We had anarchist conferences at Columbia University and would argue this point until we all were exhausted and crashed on the floor.

I believe it is achievable, not dissimilar to the paradigms that were established out west before "law and order" was established.

Any thoughts?

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:

Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is anarchy or totalitarianism further from a proper government? Anarchy fails to restrain the initiation of violence at all, and so seems worse, to me.

= Mindy

I was talking about satirical style. You are bringing up political substance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks:

I spent quite a few years in the anarcho-capitalist movement. Jerome Tucille, et. al.

One of the major issues we attempted to resolve was just this question. Private protection organizations were explored ad naseum [not meant to be pejorative] and it is a difficult issue to resolve.

Read Kropotkin and other non left wing anarchists. We had anarchist conferences at Columbia University and would argue this point until we all were exhausted and crashed on the floor.

I believe it is achievable, not dissimilar to the paradigms that were established out west before "law and order" was established.

Any thoughts?

Adam

Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.

The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?

Mindy

Edited by Mindy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:

Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

Excuse me sir, you do not know me so do not classify me because I mentioned Jerome who was a friend. I expect an apology, but I doubt that you have the balls to give one.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir:

In fact, upon information and belief, you are full of something and I doubt it is "facts". Can you spell effete or condescending? I can.

What an incredibly pompous post, but then again you do have such "purty" hair.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication.

Yes, of course these private entities work well in the context of a functioning system where one can resort to the police and the courts if they don't give satisfaction.

As for M13 and Al Capone, do you think they got their start because of prohibition or because the were starting their own friendly local private protection agency? Under a minarchy, there is no prohibition, and no opposition to legitimate private security firms or arbitration.

As for the "real world facts" you have provided over at RoR, well, you have also gotten a lot of real world refutations of your nonsense as well. So, not liking the judgment you've received, you skip jurisdiction, and bring your quack nostrums here to peddle?

Libert Magazine is the house organ of the daddy haters, the juveniles who have never gotten over their dislike of authority as such. They proved their true colors, with their Schadenfreude almost celebration of 9/11, which they saw as us getting what we deserved. That rag is not pro-liberty. It is simply anti-government, no matter how legitimate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.

The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?

Mindy

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.

The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?

Mindy

This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?

= Mindy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over on Rebirth of Reason, I have tons of material on real world, actual examples of market entities providing defense and adjudication. This is the world I work in. My citations are not to medieval Iceland or Prince Kropotkin or from the Von Rothbard Society or from the Coriolanus Institute but from the real world we live in according to (among others) the US Department of Justice which funds studies of these markets.

Selene and Tucille (and Bidinotto versus Long) debated the what-ifs to exhaustion because they lacked facts. They were religionists not entrepreneurs, theologians not accountants. I have folders and folders full of facts. Yet, few are ever persuaded. Those who are already anarchists click the approval button and sometimes a conservative or traditionalist will argue some theoretical point. No one can assail my facts. (Look in the Dissent Forum on http://rebirthofreason.com for "Police Forces and Courts of Law" and for "A World Without Government."

Let me ask the governmentalists a basic question, not answered on RoR:

Ford Motor Company and General Motors have been neighbors and competitors for 100 years. Why have the private guards of one never opened fire on the other? The governmentalists claim that it is because the State exerts a monopoly on force to keep them in line. If that is the case, then why were there ever warring gangs in New York? The Five Points gangs of the 1820s lasted over 100 years -- Al Capone was a later member. The Cosa Nostra contrinued that. In our generation, we had the Bloods and Crips and now M13, according the FBI over 30,000 gangs. Where is that suppressing monopoly on force?

There is nothing "basic" about your question. Your "facts" are not an argument. You generously combine arguments from authority with arguments to the man. ("You are wholly ignorant.") You try to have your argument while denigrating those who argue because they argue with you. Some of your "facts" are facts and interesting. You are obviously an expert in at least two areas. I respect that. That's all. Consider that you too are a "governmentalist" just like all anarchists. You want men governed after all, just by your lights. An anarchist society is a governed society or it wouldn't exist. A true anarchist is a banished tribal member and he is alone.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?

= Mindy

I don't think your response is valid. It is certainly an argument I have heard before.

I think that both of us want to live in a free society--one in which people are free to do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. My hope is that such beliefs will eventually become universally accepted, just as 2+2=4 is universally accepted. When people can all agree on rights, the formality of a "government" will not be necessary. I also realize that this type of society has also never existed.

So, how do we get there from here? My guess is that it will happen when people get into space. I don't think it will happen anywhere here on Earth. There are too many corrupt systems in place. People find it easier to drop out of them than to reform them.

I think that most human beings are incapable of establishing and maintaining a free society. There are basically three groups of people in the world--people who want to be told what to do, people who want to tell others what to do, and people who think. The third group is the only one that can establish and maintain a free society. If the thinkers separated themselves from the other two, the other two groups would annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly the condition that we have with governments. Every government in history has been lawless.

You ask for a government that solely protects the rights of individuals, a government that only uses force in retaliation. You are asking for something that has never existed.

The Nazi government was overloaded with laws and protocols. None of them just. Many governments are run on unjust laws, so they are not lawless. When government operation is determined more by written rules and established procedures (be they ever so unjust) that government is not lawless.

That being said one can ask if there have ever been any just ("good") governments. Answer: Never. In the ten thousand years since mankind has had governments, there has not been a single just government. Not one. Some have been worse then others but none of them have been good. So governments come in two flavors: bad and worse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked a specific question, I answered it. But you don't admit the validity of the response, or else say why it isn't a satisfactory answer...what's the deal?

= Mindy

I don't think your response is valid. It is certainly an argument I have heard before.

I think that both of us want to live in a free society--one in which people are free to do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. My hope is that such beliefs will eventually become universally accepted, just as 2+2=4 is universally accepted. When people can all agree on rights, the formality of a "government" will not be necessary. I also realize that this type of society has also never existed.

So, how do we get there from here? My guess is that it will happen when people get into space. I don't think it will happen anywhere here on Earth. There are too many corrupt systems in place. People find it easier to drop out of them than to reform them.

I think that most human beings are incapable of establishing and maintaining a free society. There are basically three groups of people in the world--people who want to be told what to do, people who want to tell others what to do, and people who think. The third group is the only one that can establish and maintain a free society. If the thinkers separated themselves from the other two, the other two groups would annihilate themselves with nuclear weapons.

Do you really believe a culture, however enlightened, can ensure constant good will in all individuals?

= Mindy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I expect an apology, but I doubt that you have the balls to give one.

Balls or not is irrelevant, but I do ask just what it is that you expect an apology for?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... but then again you do have such "purty" hair.

Thanks, but I cannot take credit for it as it was inherited. Allow me to say that you have a nice chart. Is it natural?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might doesn't make right. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. Whoever can pay more mercenaries can rape and pillage anyone else, mercenary "police" will believe whoever pays them to. CIVILIZATION will not survive.

The lawlessness of the wild west seems romantic to you?

Mindy

Mindy, see Brant Gaede's Post #20, where he said to me: "Consider that you too are a "governmentalist" just like all anarchists. You want men governed after all, just by your lights. An anarchist society is a governed society or it wouldn't exist. A true anarchist is a banished tribal member and he is alone."

I found that cogent. These discussions get complicated and a 3-D or 4-D medium might be more to our use than this linear-temporal arrangment. I like what Brant said because it actually points back to a truth from Aristotle: Tradition is stronger than law. That is why most other nations still do not have free and prosperous societies despite their high-sounding constitutions and declarations. It is why, despite the obvious encroachment of our own governments at all levels we still do attract immigrants who seek freedom and opportunity. A so-called "anarchist society" to be a society would have to have some widely accepted norms. That, too, is a well-known argument in sociology. Some sociologists want to explore why societies have order and others reply that absent order there is no society, by definition.

So I respond here and now to Ted Keer.... and to you, Mindy. Yes, "competing governments" truly are at war as when Hamas and Hezbollah fight for control of Palestine. On the other hand, here in the USA, we have other traditions. Wells-Fargo had its own detectives and guards in the "lawless" old west -- and they did not shoot at the marshalls or sheriffs ... or at Pinkertons.

The traditions of a society are the living actions of the individuals in them, which, in turn, are a consequence of the ideas held by those individuals.

I am researching the great medieval fairs for a magazine article. I am amazed at the complex financial arrangements that were enforced by contract and notrary in a time of near "anarchy" (so-called) caused by the nominal "lawlessness" of hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) small manors, baronies, counties, etc. And yet, for all the trade and commerce, for all the functioning of banking in a laissez faire context, the Middle Ages were not the best of times. Something was missing. That something was invented during the Enlightenment: the idea of innate rights in and of the nature of every person. In America (and the West in general) that is common to our culture. In other places here on Earth, that is not true.

Therefore, for me, anarchy is not some utopia to be worked for, but a way to see the world as it is: governments, competing governments, private agencies; lawless places and lawful places; private international law superseding state, and also international law created by states. A couple of years back, I looked under the hood of a classic Rolls Royce. The windshield washer was made by Nihon Denzu, Japan Electric. Whose law do you imagine governed the terms of that contract? I have no idea, but it was a negotiated point, to be sure. This is how the world really does work.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really believe a culture, however enlightened, can ensure constant good will in all individuals?

Well, no, of course not. The question is how are those trangressions of good will to be met?

Some ways are better than others.

The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay arrested Quakers and eventually hanged one. On the other hand, in Maryland, the Catholics and Dissenters shared a church, though not at the same time, until a second could be built. Different cultures have different norms. Some are better than others.

I agree with Chris that migration into space will bring a quantum leap in our understanding, as did the settlement of America following the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. It was not perfect then, and will not be perfect in the future, either. New challenges bring new solutions and some are better than others.

Minarchists are to politics as agnostics are to religion. Whether someone is "good" or "bad" often -- and perhaps strangely enough -- has little to do with their espoused beliefs, though everything to do with the ideas they have accepted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really believe a culture, however enlightened, can ensure constant good will in all individuals?

Well, no, of course not. The question is how are those trangressions of good will to be met?

Some ways are better than others.

The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay arrested Quakers and eventually hanged one. On the other hand, in Maryland, the Catholics and Dissenters shared a church, though not at the same time, until a second could be built. Different cultures have different norms. Some are better than others.

I agree with Chris that migration into space will bring a quantum leap in our understanding, as did the settlement of America following the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. It was not perfect then, and will not be perfect in the future, either. New challenges bring new solutions and some are better than others.

Minarchists are to politics as agnostics are to religion. Whether someone is "good" or "bad" often -- and perhaps strangely enough -- has little to do with their espoused beliefs, though everything to do with the ideas they have accepted.

I don't get your point. What position are you arguing? What the devil does going into space have to do with it?

= Mindy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now